[Buddha-l] Subject: the poignancy of Donald Lopez

[Dan Lusthaus]

Curt,

I was planning to stay out of this, since we have hashed this over in the 
past. But when you write

>
> Bernard Faure, in his "Afterthoughts" section of the volume in question,
> cites several specific examples of religious persecution associated with
> Buddhism in China and Japan, but then says "these cases are the
> exceptions that prove the Buddhist rule, and they underscore the
> contrast with the practice of Inquisition in Christianity." [p. 218]

someone, as you suggest, has to exercise some adult supervision. Lots of 
folks would like Buddhism to have had that immaculate history, devoid of 
violence, and thus avoiding the hypocrasy of Christians calling Jesus the 
Prince of Peace while declaring Holy War on each other, heretics, and the 
unconvertible.

The fact of the matter is, despite Faure's reassurances, Buddhist violence 
in East and South-east Asia has not been exceptional. An English translation 
of Paul Demiéville's well-known French essay, "Le bouddhisme et la guerre: 
Post-scriptum à l'Histoire des moines guerriers du Japon de Gaston 
Renondeau," in Mélanges publiés par l'Institut Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 
1957, 1:347-385  is included in the _Buddhist Warfare_ volume. Unfortunately 
translated by a grad student who knew French, but not Chinese or Buddhism, 
so there are all sorts of avoidable mistakes, and the Chinese terms are 
transliterated into an old French system rather than pinyin or Wade-Giles, 
etc., but his essay alone would indicate that neither in Korea nor Japan was 
there anything exceptional to Buddhist violence and warfare. He points out 
numerous examples in China, but laments that the sufficient historical 
material is yet unexplored.

Today, we have a bit more detail on China (thanks, indirectly to studies of 
millennial revolts carried out by scholars of Daoism), less awareness of 
Korean Buddhist history in this regard (and most others as well), and once 
again tons of material on Japan, most ignored by Buddhologists.

Since Japan is best documented today in English, here are three works by 
Stephen Turnbull (a leading expert in premodern Japanese militarism, 
lecturer at University of Leeds) worth consulting. The first, which I've 
mentioned before, is the larger study, the other two are shorter studies, 
and overlap to some extent, though their focus takes them in slightly 
different directions. All are copiously illustrated:

Stephen Turnbull. _Warriors of Medieval Japan_, Oxford, UK & NY: Osprey 
Publ, 2005.
http://tinyurl.com/ylbs34a

--- . Japanese Fortified Temples and Monasteries AD 710-1602. Oxford, UK & 
NY: Osprey Publ, 2005
http://tinyurl.com/yjb5swe

--- . Japanese Warrior Monks AD 949-1603, Oxford, UK & NY: Osprey Publ, 
2003.
http://tinyurl.com/yloh5cu

Very informative works.

But even Demiéville's piece shows, to Brian Victoria's chagrin, that 20th 
century Buddhist militarism has a long, pedigreed history.

Given the hostility and unwelcomed manner with which Jerryson's work is 
being greeted by some scholars and self-styled Buddhists (like Curt's 
pathetic ad hominem) suggests Jerryson, like Brian Victoria, should be 
admired for their courage at bringing an obviously very touchy subject to 
the fore instead of joining the lynch mob.

Demiéville in his piece (which a very long time ago I discussed on this list 
with Nobumi Iyanaga and others) states that at least Buddhists in India 
refrained from violence (as if the problem can be blamed on the pollution of 
non-Indian cultures). I don't know whether Buddhist warriors, trained and 
garrisoned in Buddhist temples were ever a common occurrence, but violence 
on a smaller scale was certainly attributed to Buddhists by others in India. 
Once Nalanda became the leading center for studyin debate, logic and 
philosophical rhetoric, Buddhists jealously guarded their industrial 
secrets, since losing a debate could have dire consequences (anywhere from 
losing your life, to becoming a slave to the winner, to closing up your 
school and temples and moving to the next state). Only Buddhists were 
allowed in class. There are stories of two brothers (the Mimamsikas claim it 
was Kumarila Bhatta and his brother; the Jains claim it was one of their 
leading logicians and his brother) who surreptitiously entered logic class 
at Nalanda, studying for many years, while pretending to be Buddhist monks 
(shaved head, robes, the whole deal). Eventually (most usual figure is 20 
years) their deceipt is discovered and they flee for their lives. The 
brother who becomes famous survives, but the other brother is caught and 
killed. There are actually additional stories of this type in the Indian 
archives.

In case you find that shocking, before you write about how good little Chan 
monks in the mainstream (not those fringe samurai wannabes) would never do 
such a thing, reread your Platform Sutra about the advice Huineng was given 
by the Fifth patriarch as he handed over the robe and bowl. Seems to be 
Buddhist tradition.

As for Suzuki, HHDL and Rahula, these are fair targets.

Rahula grew up in form of Buddhism utterly sanitized of all social activism, 
turned into pacifism by the British. Rahula was among a group of Theravadins 
who, angry at the Colonial British, searched the Pali texts and traditions 
for cues of justifications to oppose the British. Rahula came to the 
conclusion that an entire, important dimension within the Theravadin 
tradition, a strong social activism, had been suppressed by the British, so 
reclaiming that became the foundation for their resistance. So I'm not sure 
I would agree with Jerryson that Rahula is a big problem here.

Curt might think that "anyone" interested in Tibet would know that HHDL's 
pacifism is aberrant and out of step with Tibetan history (right up to the 
present day) and rejected by many others in the hierarchy -- I would expect 
at least buddha-l readers are aware of that since this had been discussed 
here so often, but that's not the case. I remember some years back at an 
AAR, a young scholar was giving a paper on the Tibetan and Chinese attitudes 
toward Islam (I've mentioned this here before as well); he spent some time 
discussing the Kalacakra, which as all of here know, is (1) one of HHDL's 
prime texts -- he trots the globe giving Kalacakra initiations, and (2) a 
grand cosmological treatise in which Islam plays the world's evils, 
predicting that the great king of Shambhala will eventually rise up with his 
armies and destroy Islam, and everyone lives happily ever. The Armaggedon is 
described in vivid detail. Members of the audience, young Tibetanologists, 
were horrified, and at the Q&A at the conclusion of the paper asked, in all 
sincerety: "Does the Dalai Lama know about this?"

Suzuki has long been recognized as having promoted an historically novel 
post-Meiji version of Zen as the historical deal -- so enchantingly that it 
had traction. Yes, he played up a Zen and Samurai romance -- which in that 
form was also post-Meiji -- which obscured the actual militant history. 
Suzuki Zen still dominates the way western culture visualizes Zen. Shingon, 
Tendai and Pure Land were, in fact, much more intimately involved with 
military Buddhism (to coin a phrase that should be part of every discussion 
of Japanese Buddhism) than Zen, which played catch-up. But there were plenty 
of Zen "masters" who not only counciled samurais on how to fight, but were 
noted swordsman themselves who did more than practice on straw dummies in 
the courtyard.

Temples had their own armies, and ran things. They attacked each other, and 
others. Some of these battles are very well known in Japan, subjects of 
famous paintings, stories, and poems, but there is virtual silence (with the 
exceptions noted above). So Faure's claim of "exception" is, in fact, 
precisely the opposite of the historical record.

Dan

P.S. Richard, thanks for the post on Matthew Kosuta and Burma. Nicely put, 
even if I don't think shrugging and dismissing is an adequate "analysis" of 
why Buddhism in Burma (and elsewhere) is and has been what it is (nor our 
desire to see it otherwise).